2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-fifth Sitting

Thursday 4 October 2012 at 3 30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.34 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Our first business is to consider the changes proposed to the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2012)07, Addendum 3.

Are the proposed changes to the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

2. Code of conduct of members of the Parliamentary Assembly: good practice or a core duty?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Code of conduct of members of the Parliamentary Assembly: good practice or a core duty?”, Document 13000, presented by Mr Robert Walter in place of Mr Oliver Heald, on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes today. If necessary, I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 4.20 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes.

I call Mr Walter, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Perhaps I should first explain why I am presenting this report, and not Mr Oliver Heald. The report is the work of Mr Heald, my colleague from the United Kingdom, but he was recently appointed by the Prime Minister to the post of Solicitor General, one of the senior law officers of the government, and this week is a very busy and important time in the legal calendar in my country so his duties prevent him from being here in Strasbourg. He very much regrets that, as he would have liked to have been here.

Oliver is a distinguished and very experienced parliamentarian, and has served for some time on the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. He has also served since 2008 on the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. He is therefore personally committed to promoting the highest standards of behaviour in public life.

This report is critical to the respect that the Assembly has gained over many years, and to the integrity of its members. Many of us hold conflicting views. We must be seen to bring honesty and fairness to our deliberations. There must be no accusation of corruption in any of the decisions that we take in this Chamber.

In June 2011, our President, Jean-Claude Mignon, and other colleagues pointed out the need for a code of conduct for all members of the Assembly. Mr Heald, having been appointed rapporteur, was asked to address the issue of gifts, and to equip the Assembly with suitable safeguards against acceptance of hospitality in return for political favours.

Later, a motion tabled by Mr Harutyunyan and other colleagues asked for Assembly members’ accountability to be strengthened and for the mechanism regarding conflict of interest to be reinforced. Why were all these conflict-related questions suddenly asked? Does it mean that current members have less ethical behaviour? I asked myself: how can someone measure a member of parliament’s integrity? Is there any reliable indicator that can be used to measure someone’s integrity with exactitude?

I think that the reason for the growing interest in these topics lies in the fact that the way the Parliamentary Assembly and national parliaments, or public institutions in general, interact with people is changing. People want to know more about how institutions function, and how decisions that could affect their lives are taken. A number of scandals that have rocked different national parliaments in the past 10 years have dramatically undermined trust in our elected politicians.

One should also note the growing involvement of interest groups in the Assembly’s work; that has required the setting up of additional regulations. The Assembly also faces a new trend whereby governments and other organisations, and even individuals, engage lobbyists to promote their interests. Ten days ago, the speakers of national parliaments were gathered in this Chamber to discuss the challenges that representative democracy is facing, and how to increase people’s trust in elected institutions. The code of conduct and principles, and the mechanisms it aims to put in place, is one possible way of regaining public trust. It allows for any member of parliament whose conduct is questionable, or who uses MPs’ prerogatives for personal enrichment, to be asked to give a full account of his or her actions.

The drafting of the code of conduct has also provided an opportunity to launch debates about ethical thinking within the Assembly. We can consider the following: is there a European-wide consensus on what should or should not be considered as being ethical or acceptable for parliamentarians? Is a jar of jam or a bottle of wine offered to a member of parliament a gift or a bribe? Is lobbying good or bad? Should someone give up his or her professional activities after being elected or should parliamentarians be able to balance their professional life and their duties as elected representatives? No single answer can be given, as each member has different individual, cultural and social perceptions, but the draft code has tried to bring together the principles and policies that could be shared by all members, regardless of their ideological or political position.

The code is composed of general principles, which provide a benchmark for expected behaviour, and a set of rules that, notably, deal with issues such as conflicts of interest, requiring such conflicts to be resolved in a way that protects the public interest, or, if that is impossible, to disclose and ban paid advocacy. Furthermore, members would be requested to register with the Secretariat of the Assembly gifts and similar advantages received, if their value was more than €200. Such a threshold would enable parliamentarians to avoid having to register small gifts, which they frequently receive. A special provision would guarantee that former members involved in lobbying activities are treated on an equal footing with representatives of other interest groups.

The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs inquired into the need to impose a cooling-off period on former members, deciding that, given the current degree of their involvement in representing interests before the Assembly, such a restriction did not seem appropriate. However, the committee might look into this matter in the future if cases of apparent abuse were considered significant. The code of conduct would set up an enforcement mechanism giving the President of the Assembly a leading role in launching investigations and deciding on sanctions. For instance, having in mind the seriousness of the offence, the President could decide to deal with the matter internally or to make the information public. An investigation could be launched following information about a member’s alleged misbehaviour. The seriousness and reliability of the information would have to be considered by the President. A recent report by a non-governmental organisation reproaching some Assembly members for allegedly accepting gifts from a certain member state in return for certain political favours was an example of such a form of information that we might take into account.

Guidance on all matters covered by this code, and on situations that may arise from its application, may be sought from the Secretary General. The draft resolution, with the code of conduct set out in the appendix, proposed the modification of Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure, through the introduction of an obligation for Assembly members to comply with the code’s requirements while performing their duties. While drafting the report it also proved necessary to modify access rules for special interests’ representatives and lobbyists to allow for some private space for members’ work. Therefore, the Bureau was asked to modify access rules in the light of the considerations developed in the report.

Finally, the report gives the Assembly a good opportunity to be closely associated with the valuable work performed by the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption. The GRECO is addressing the issue of corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament. A parliamentary code of conduct is, therefore, an important element of this fourth GRECO evaluation round. It would also be the Assembly’s duty to follow up the GRECO’s conclusions and recommendations on the matter when they are drawn up. National parliaments are therefore invited to co-operate fully with the GRECO on its third and fourth evaluation rounds. The code offers no panaceas, only new grounds for hope and action. I am pleased that, apparently, it will receive approval from members of this Assembly. That would be a great tribute to the rapporteur, into whose shoes I have tried to step this afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Walter. You have four minutes left. The next speaker is Mr Harutyunyan, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – Thank you, Mr President. First, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Heald, on the excellent job he has done, and Mr Walter on his thorough presentation of the report. My group fully supports the report, and our members signed the motions underlying it. The code of conduct for Assembly members is a necessary instrument aimed at regulating their behaviour in the light of possible conflict of interest, lobbying and the potential impact of those things on the functioning of democratic institutions and political decision-making.

While expressing my full support for the report, I wish to focus on the activities of lobbyists in the Assembly. The making of mere statements on conflict of interest is obviously not a sufficient mechanism to ensure the transparency and accountability of the activities of Assembly members. It is a pity that there have been numerous cases of disguised lobbying activities carried out by Assembly members, which, unfortunately, were revealed only after they became former members. After leaving the Assembly, a number of colleagues have immediately become members of lobbying groups. It would be too naïve of us to think that such people were not paid advocates while they were carrying out their duties as Assembly members.

We realise that lobbying is a legal and necessary element in the dynamics of a democracy, but we must remember that it is a paid activity. Although consistent with the ideas of democracy, the influence of interest groups can, in practice, lead to political corruption and inequality of representation. We must bear in mind that this Parliamentary Assembly is not a law-making Organisation where lobbying could be a necessary instrument for promoting certain interests; it is an Organisation of values and principles that advocates democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of having good governance and confidence in institutions. Anyone engaged in lobbying activities will be committed to, and constrained by, obligations undertaken for clients and will not abide by the objectives pursued by the Organisation. Furthermore, lobbyists may have used the contacts, influence and relationships they have established here to make money.

This report is not the end of the story. The Assembly shall further develop strong mechanisms to ensure transparency and the integrity of the organisation. The next step in that direction could be the introduction of a register of lobbyists and a mechanisms for their identification.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Harutyunyan. The next speaker is Mr Villumsen, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank the rapporteur, Mr Heald, and Mr Walter on behalf of my group. The report is both good and relevant, and it is crucial that we adopt a transparent and consistent framework in order to clarify the position on conflict of interest, and on offers of gifts and hospitality or the use of office. Therefore, my group will support this report, as we greatly favour transparency and accountability, and we highly respect this Assembly. We will do our best to live up to the report’s guidelines.

I stress that these ethical rules that we are about to impose on ourselves are not small duties. Many voters in Denmark would be surprised if politicians were, all of a sudden, known to be honest and to be good leaders – perhaps that applies only to Denmark. None the less, we should, of course, strive to be honest and good leaders, so let us endorse the report and let us live up to this aim. I urge the Assembly to adopt the report and I hope that it will.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Villumsen. I next call Mr Wach, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr WACH (Poland) – First, I wish to express our support for this report which is an important and necessary tool to consolidate and clarify the required conduct of members of the Parliamentary Assembly. The reasons for introducing a formal “code of conduct for members of the Parliamentary Assembly” are well explained in the initial paragraphs of the report, and we agree with them.

Without going into details, we have noticed several critical media comments in the news, on the Internet and through other popular information channels about the alleged misconduct of some politicians, including members of our Assembly. Even if these reports were not proved or sufficiently substantiated, opinions of elected politicians are often negative and undermine confidence in our honest approach to public duties.

Some practical steps were already introduced in regulations by the Monitoring Committee on the selection of rapporteurs for reports on monitored countries and the selection of observers of elections. But in the interests of greater transparency for our decision-making process, it is much better to introduce a concise and clear code of conduct that draws the lines of acceptable behaviour and the division between the public and private interests of our members.

If approved the code will play a double role. One is to provide guidance to members of the Parliamentary Assembly if they are tempted to yield to some illegal influence, in particular gifts or other incentives from any interested party. The other role of this formalisation is to show to the general public that we have clear rules and, in drastic cases, investigations must start with some consequences.

The code of conduct will provide a formal way for the President of the Assembly to start the clarification procedure and to seek assistance from the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, which would examine the circumstances of the alleged misconduct and make a recommendation for a potential decision by the President.

We recognise the need for the code and we are satisfied with the outcome of the rapporteur’s work, so we congratulate him and support the report and its appended text of the code of conduct.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Wach. I next call Mr Gross, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – My group wishes to thank Mr Heald for his report and for the careful work he has done. I ask Mr Walter to pass our thanks on to Mr Heald. I hope that he will not forget us now he is a minister.

We need this code of conduct and, as Mr Villumsen said, we need to live up to it. However, it will be difficult for some of us, because many of us do not have a similar code of conduct at home. To be honest, it will create conflicts and difficulties. Perhaps we should also think about establishing what the British have in their parliament in our home parliaments. Bob, you will know better than I do that you cannot affect reality by the formalisation of good conduct alone. You also have to understand the spirit. If you do not understand the spirit, you will fail. Even if you do not fail formally, it will be difficult to find out when something is not going as it should when it comes to following the spirit of this code of conduct. It will be very difficult to speak about it because it will be extremely difficult to prove that there is reason to speak about it without doing harm to anybody.

Another point is that while reading this paper I could not forget what Mr Strässer said yesterday during the debate on political prisoners – many of us do not share the same understanding as parliamentarians. Some of us seem to think that our role as parliamentarians is to be delegates of government. Sometimes, when I propose a motion, people tell me that I should first ask the government at home, not colleagues in the parliament whether I can do something. This shows another aspect that we have to take into account — we have to ask ourselves if there is something we can do to reach a common understanding that parliamentarians are autonomous persons who represent only their people and not the executive. We are not the delegates of the government or of secretaries of state. The code of conduct might interfere with that, but I totally agree that we should try to live up to it. If we do so, it could make a difference to others.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gross. In the debate I call next Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In our Assembly, it is important to ensure that all the links are strong enough to prevent the chain from breaking. Our duty is to promote and protect human rights. The key phrase for this mission is “public confidence”. We depend on trust at all levels from individuals, NGOs, media and national governments. None of us should ever be suspected of having a hidden agenda or promoting our own personal interests. Otherwise we risk putting the credibility of our work on human rights at stake.

Therefore, we must welcome this code of conduct with strict requirements for behaviour. This is about good practice, as well as core duty. A written code of conduct will increase our awareness of the ethics that apply to each and every one of us, and increase the threshold for temptation.

Corruption is one of the biggest threats to democracy. Unfortunately, corruption is prevalent in too many of our member countries. How can we ensure that no one brings their bad habits into our Organisation? Probably, we cannot. We must at least assume that this may happen and try to reduce the chance of that as much as possible. So-called caviar diplomacy was mentioned in the debate yesterday. Last year, we received an email with the following quote, “How an authoritarian regime ‘neutered’ Europe’s oldest human rights organisation, turned international election monitoring into political theatre and secured the stamp of legitimacy from Council of Europe membership.” Such allegations, whether true or not, could undermine the image of our Assembly. Therefore, clear rules for examining alleged breaches of the code of conduct will be helpful in restoring confidence, as well as protecting us against what might turn out to be unfounded accusations.

I support the suggestion that the code of conduct should also include former members of this Assembly who are involved in lobbying. This is a delicate matter which should be monitored. I strongly support the proposed register of gifts above a certain value.

Finally, I have a question for the rapporteur. Is an oral declaration, as proposed in paragraph 20, sufficient? Would it not be better if we all declared by signature that we have read and understood the code of conduct? Moreover, should not the provisions of paragraph 25 about bribes, gifts and other benefits be retroactive? If we all declare by signature that we have never received such bribes, the code of conduct would cover the total functional period of all present members of the Assembly, not only future actions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Christoffersen. I call Ms Čigāne.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – Two weeks ago the President of this Assembly, Mr Mignon, hosted a conference attended by the speakers of the national parliaments of the Council of Europe member states, during which many people referred to this Assembly as a cradle of democracy and a sanctuary of human rights and freedoms. I attended the conference, and I sat there thinking whether those descriptions are always deserved. Do we always really maintain the highest code of ethics and conduct in our work? In a recent book published by a prominent contributor to The Economist, this Assembly was described as a well-funded talking shop that passes moralising resolutions of little weight. Is that really the image this Assembly wants to project?

Yesterday we had a lengthy debate on the definition of political prisoners. I am very happy that the Assembly voted to adopt that resolution. Had we not done so, we would really have downgraded ourselves to a mere talking shop, because we would have failed to define a very important concept that is central to our understanding of human rights. Both in Council of Europe member states and in neighbouring countries, civil society looks up to our work with great expectation and hope.

Today the Committee on Public Affairs and Democracy heard from representatives of civil society in Belarus. Our engagement with them is very important to their work and their continued hope. I recently returned from an election observation mission to Georgia. Both the government party and the opposition party there looked at how we assessed their election with the greatest attentiveness. Therefore, we really should maintain the highest ethical standards in everything we do in this Assembly. For that reason, I think that the code of conduct is very helpful.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Čigāne. Ms Pashayeva is not here; neither is Mr Mendes Bota. I call Mr Bugnon.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland) said that democracy required rules, and respect for those rules; these, like freedom of the press, freedom of speech and multi-party politics, were essential elements of an open society. Politicians across Europe had lost the trust of their populations and it was unfortunate that it only took one case of a bad parliamentarian for the public to believe that all politicians were just the same. Some change was required to the rules of the Assembly in order to win back the trust of the public, and declaration of conflicts of interest was a central issue. When relevant rules were changed members of the public would need to know about them.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Bugnon and called Ms Fraser.

Ms FRASER (Observer from Canada) said that this report was an excellent first step, and the premises contained within it were quite correct. She had a few remarks based on her experience in the Canadian Senate and believe that she could usefully share them with various members present.

Many elements of our code resemble those proposed here, but I will talk about three that are different. First, one thing we have found to be key to the acceptance and good functioning of our code is that it is not administered by the regular senate administration or leadership – the clerk, the speaker and the political leaders. Instead, we have an independent senate ethics officer whose appointment is ratified by the senate but who comes from outside the senate system. That greatly heightens confidence in his impartiality. He advises senators, administers the code and reports to the senate through a bipartisan committee.

Secondly, our rules explicitly require senators who have conflicts of interest to refrain from voting on or even debating questions in relation to which conflicts arise. Thirdly, we require confidential disclosure to the SEO of the nature, but not the value – the dollar amount – of both income and assets, and not only of senators but also of their spouses. The SEO then posts a summary of that information on his website.

You can imagine how controversial this rule was; senators feared that there would be glaring headlines about their private affairs. But the opposite has turned out to be true. The mere fact that this information is public seems to have calmed all the old suspicions that we must have scandalous things to hide. In fact, sunshine works. It works for us parliamentarians and for democracy, and I am sure that it will work for you, too. I wish you all success as your code comes into play.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Fraser. We are ahead of time, so if anyone else wishes to speak, they are at liberty to do so. I call Sir Roger Gale.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate my colleagues Oliver Heald and Bob Walter on their work, which is extremely impressive and very necessary. I believe that it will represent a major leap forward in the integrity of the Council of Europe.

Paragraph 16.3 states that members shall “not act in such a way as to bring the Assembly into disrepute or tarnish the Assembly’s image”. The leader of the forthcoming Council of Europe observer mission to Ukraine, who spoke in the debate and is present to hear me, has given an interview to Ukrainian journalists without the consent of colleagues, calling for a new revolution and likening Ukraine to Russia. Before we have even begun our work, that compromises the important nature of the mission and places us in an almost impossible position as it is clear that at least one member of the delegation has formed an opinion in advance.

I have observed many elections, as have colleagues. Ms Čigāne was with us in Georgia and also referred to the importance of these observer missions. Other countries place a great deal of weight on them. This is exactly the sort of incident that has nothing to do with money, nothing to do with bribery, and nothing to do with offering any sort of favours whatsoever, but which clearly and dangerously brings the reputation of the Council of Europe into disrepute. When the Bureau meets tomorrow morning, it has an opportunity to act here and now to send out a very clear message. I hope that it will do so. I believe – sadly, because he is a friend – that the leader of that proposed delegation must be replaced.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I will pass that request onto the President.

Does anyone else wish to speak? That is not the case.

I call Mr Walter to respond. You have four minutes, but you can take your time.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I thank all members who have participated in this debate. Mr Harutyunyan clearly dealt with the issue of lobbyists, but I would caution him that we must do what we can, not the impossible. It would be impossible to police a proposal such as his because we do not cover a single jurisdiction – the Parliamentary Assembly is not a sovereign authority. Of course, when former members who are now acting as lobbyists are here, they will be covered, according to this code of conduct, by the same rules as outside lobbyists. If this becomes a serious problem, however, we could reconsider, but I fear that politics is the art of the possible and that the Parliamentary Assembly is not yet the sovereign body governing the 47 member states.

I thank Mr Villumsen for his support, and Mr Wach, too, who noted the Monitoring Committee’s declarations of conflicts of interest for rapporteurs. This report is a clear extension of that principle. Mr Gross said that we should comply with the spirit of the code and that is important, because much of what we do is informal. Ms Christoffersen talked about the need to investigate alleged breaches of the rules and of the spirit of the rules. She mentioned the question of an oral declaration at the beginning of her speech, which I think flows from the practice in my own parliament, where you declare a relevant interest, but say that it can be found in the register of members’ interests. That is available as a public document and means that you do not have to go through all the travel, gifts and employment that might be relevant to that debate.

I thank the other speakers for their support, particularly Ms Fraser from Canada, who spoke about the independent administration of such matters in Canada. In the United Kingdom, we have an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that is totally separate from parliament itself. Others talked about the need for trust and confidence in that body, which is particularly important. Sir Roger Gale mentioned paragraph 16.3 of the draft resolution and talked about actions that could bring the Assembly into disrepute and he made a point about which he feels passionately.

Let me make a more general point. Everyone who has spoken has supported the report and I further commend the work done by my colleague, Oliver Heald. He brought a great deal of judgment to the report, as did the secretariat of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. I thank it for its work and I hope the Assembly will be able to pass the report, hopefully unanimously. I also hope that we will be able to pass it without amendment for the reasons that I have stated.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Walter. I will now give the vice-chairperson of the committee, Mr Díaz Tejera, the opportunity to speak.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that he was glad of the opportunity to speak, because he did not wish to give the impression that he was indifferent to the debate. In fact, he supported this report with a passion. It had been a straightforward matter to preside over the Committee’s discussions on this topic because there had been general support for the proposal. The rapporteur had done an effective job of work, which had been met with broad, if not indeed unanimous, support. Now it remained to be seen how it would be put into practice.

In many countries there had sometimes been what amounted to a witchhunt against politicians, motivated by the media, which raised questions about the propriety of parliamentarians. This was the sort of fascist discourse that one did not expect to hear in the 21^st century. However, it was true to say that sometimes politicians did not do things as well as they should, and they bore responsibility for maintaining the prestige of parliamentarians. Parliamentarianism was essential for democracy. He thanked Mr Heald and Mr Walter for their work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. The debate is closed.

The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has presented a draft resolution in Document 13000, to which one amendment has been tabled.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Harutyunyan, Ms Postanjyan, Ms Zohrabyan, Mr V. Hovhannisyan, Mr Zourabian and Mr Rustamyan, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 21, to insert the following sentence:

“No former member shall act as a paid advocate for at least five years.”

I call Mr Harutyunyan to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – The proposal is to introduce a five-year cooling-off period for former members of the Assembly before they can be involved in paid advocacy in this Organisation. The scale of this issue is becoming alarming; I personally know of four people who are involved in such activities, including the former leader of a political group and two chairs of the most influential committees. Without such a limitation, we endanger the essence of this Organisation. Unfortunately, the committee voted six to five against this amendment. I remind you that the necessity to establish a cooling-off period is stated in our recommendation 1908 of 2010. Who should abide by our recommendations if not this very Assembly, which should follow its own recommendations? Please support this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The provisions of this amendment and the examination of this proposal are in paragraph 37 of the memorandum that is attached to the report. It would be impossible to police this measure; while obviously it would cover former members when they were physically here in this building, and we could exclude them, in all the other activities that they carried out this would be impossible because we simply do not have jurisdiction elsewhere. It would therefore be unfortunate to put something unenforceable into the code of conduct.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13000.

The vote is open.

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – On a point of order, Mr President, I have to clarify that in yesterday’s vote on Amendment 2 regarding the definition of “political prisoner”, I voted in favour but that was a mistake – I meant to vote against. I want to clarify that mistake and to have it entered into the Official Report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Hägg. We note your comment.

3. The right to freedom of choice in education in Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “The right to freedom of choice in education in Europe”, Document 13010, presented by Ms Quintanilla on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. I remind you that the Assembly has decided to restrict the speaking time to three minutes.

If necessary, I shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.45 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes.

I call Ms Quintanilla, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain) said that the report and the draft resolution had been extensively debated in Committee. They were the result of in-depth and broad fact-finding and exchanges of views. The report emphasised the importance of an effective guarantee of the right to freedom of choice in education. This was a topic clearly within the area of fundamental rights, and therefore fell within the remit of the Council of Europe in its role as defender of those rights.

She paid tribute to Mrs Fernández-Capel, a former member of this Assembly, who had been the inspiration for this work. She thanked her colleagues from other groups, particularly Mrs Brasseur, Mr Connarty and Mr Sannen, each of whom had made very constructive contributions. She hoped that this report, which concerned education and freedom, would be unanimously accepted.

Initially there had been a degree of disagreement, which she believed had arisen from an imprecise understanding of the intention of the report. Some had believed that the right to choose education would be in conflict with other fundamental rights, and questioned the extent of the competence of the state in this matter. However, the right to choose education was intimately linked to freedom of conscience, and the rights of parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious, philosophical or secular beliefs. The freedom to choose education was part and parcel of the right to education itself, which helped to form individuals from infancy and contributed to the full development of personality. Today’s children were tomorrow’s adults. Article 26 of the European Declaration on Human Rights affirmed that education should be free in the fundamental early stages. Article 2 of the Additional Protocol expressly recognised the link between the right to education, and the right to choose education. Parents had the right to do this in accordance with their views and convictions. These were not conflicting rights; they were complementary rather than in opposition, and this was recognised in Article 2.

This fitted in with the right to education through freedom of religion. It was obvious though that if there were no right to education at all, freedom of choice in education would be pointless.

A central role needed to be played by the state and by publicly run schools and this was reflected in the recommendation. A study annexed to the report said that freedom of education was included in the legal orders of 35 states – in 28 of those this was at constitutional level. In other countries freedom of education was not recognised so it was necessary to promote the rights in practice along the lines of the European Convention of Human Rights.

There were three principles in regard to freedom of education. The first was pluralism; the second was protection of the rights of minors; and the third was the elimination of discrimination between students and their respective families. These were vital. This was understood by the Committee, which agreed these principles unanimously.

The report recommended, inter alia, that the role of the public sector should be upheld, that plurality should be encouraged, that the right to establish a private school should be recognised in law, and that private schools should have the opportunity to integrate into the mainstream educational system.

She called on the Assembly to approve the report and to avoid an ideological row. It was important to frame the future of the children. It should be a future of freedom which allowed young people to compete with others to have a bright future.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Quintanilla. You have three minutes left for your reply to the debate. We now come to the general debate. The first speaker is Ms Andersen, speaking on behalf of the Group of the United European Left. You have three minutes.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – The Group of the United European Left wants to start with the question: what is the real need in Europe and the world today? It is a need to understand each other, and to be able to learn to live together despite our differences, religious beliefs and ethnic origins. It is clear that it is a parent’s right to choose a child’s education or school; we do not dispute that, but we have to ask whether that is the most important question regarding education. We think that the most important need is to develop good public schools, where children from every part of society, every social group and every religion come together and learn to live together to create society. I agree that this is about the future.

The text in the report does not violate the rules that we have in Norway – Norway is in compliance with it – but we are putting all the emphasis on, and are highlighting, the differences between us. We could end up having Muslims in one school, Catholics in another, Christians in another and atheists in another. In Norway, we could end up having the Pakistani people in one school and the people from Somalia in another. I do not think that would create a good society, in Norway or anywhere.

I visited the Balkans a couple of weeks ago with my colleagues, and unfortunately, Bosnia and other places are developing a school system in which there are parallel schools under one roof. They focus on ethnicity and language, not on being together in society. We have to consider how much emphasis we will put on that. The basics are okay; the system is there, and it is all right. However, we parliamentarians have an important obligation to ensure that public schools are of good quality, so that they are good enough for every young person in our countries, and so that it is possible for every pupil to develop there, with comrades from every part of society and of every religion. Such schools have to be secular; that is important. Churches can teach children about religion.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Andersen. The next speaker is Mr Ghiletchi, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of my group, I congratulate Carmen Quintanilla on a passionate, good and relevant report. Education is very important nowadays. Its objective is not only intellectual training, but the formation of character. An educated person will have a greater chance of finding a job and will be better equipped to secure a brighter future. The future of any state is tightly connected to the quality of education offered to its citizens, so education plays a crucial role in promoting, developing and maintaining a democratic state.

One of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society is granting freedom to people. Given that, the state must also grant this right in the field of education, by respecting the religious and philosophical convictions of families. I am glad that this report acknowledges important aspects relating to the right to freedom of choice in education: the freedom to choose a school; and the freedom to create and run private schools and educational establishments.

The right to freedom of choice will also contribute to improving the education system by encouraging competition between schools. Public schools will be more efficient and successful, both in using allocated resources and in attaining higher results, because to compete with private schools they will have to improve their services .The right to choose a school will deliver a market with competition, entrepreneurship and innovation. That will create incentives for all educational institutions to strive to do better. If we want to raise educational standards and change the character of education, we should allow this competition to take place. A lack of choice can create a lack of innovation in pedagogical concepts and in different ways of learning being adapted to different students’ needs. School choice will allow students to attend a school whose qualities appeal to them and their parents. People will be able to choose a school that can deliver education in a manner tailored to the specific needs of the student.

The educational system needs to be part of the free-market economy. However, as the report mentions, “Some of the school systems in several member States continue to operate according to a centralised model, whereby the State maintains a monopoly on education to the exclusion of the family as a decision-making force in the educational process.” We should put choice back into the hands of parents and families, because that is where it belongs. Governments should not forget the importance of parental involvement in school governance. Only a real choice can keep both systems, the public and the private, efficient and accountable to their consumers.

In conclusion, I wish to quote Gustave Flaubert, who said, “Life must be a constant education; one must learn everything, from speaking to dying.”

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. The next speaker is Mr Connarty, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Mr President. First, I echo people’s compliments to Ms Quintanilla. She has been a real advocate for her ideas, having taken on this report on behalf of someone else. We did not always agree. We travelled a long journey back and forward, and hopefully we will get somewhere near to reaching an agreement that will suit everyone.

The most consistent contribution that we heard, from country after country, in committee debates on the freedom of choice in education was “this is not how education is organised in our country.” Although there may be different histories, different levels of progress and different systems, surely we must have the same principles to guide us all. What emerged in the debates and studies of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media was the diversity of solutions in respect of the responsibilities placed on governments by the UN conventions and, in particular, Article 2 on education in the additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights

Another statement that we often heard was, “that is not what our country means by ‘private school’.” We had lots of debates about what constituted a “private school” both inside and outside the state system. Government responses to the wishes of parents have been both supportive and innovative, and most countries go beyond the level of government financial support required by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in 1968 and 1985. They both confirmed that states do not have an obligation to subsidise education of any particular type. For many members, the report’s attempt to instruct a universal rule outside the Court’s current position on finance was not acceptable, and amendments were pursued, right up until today’s debate, proposing to recognise each government’s right to choose or refuse to go beyond the statutory obligation of the Court’s ruling.

The Socialist Group’s position is that this Assembly must not be seen to call on governments to support the purchase of privilege in education, particularly at a time of austerity, when there is pressure on resources for basic statutory educational provision. Socialist members are not opposed to the many diverse and innovative ways in which governments interpret and finance their educational duty on freedom of choice, but we oppose the proposal that all governments must follow one method of resource support, beyond the interpretation of the Court. We support Amendments 3 and 4, which seek to delete paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 on finance. At a time when even the Conservative Government of the United Kingdom officially opposes the proposal that those who buy educational advantage should receive financial support from the state, surely this Assembly will not call for resources to be diverted from mainstream educational facilities to support areas of privilege.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Connarty. The next speaker is Mr Comte, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr COMTE (Switzerland) said that when a liberal saw a report about freedom of choice he would naturally think it a good thing. ALDE supported paragraphs 1 to 4 of the resolution about the right to establish private schools and about respecting religious faith. All children should be able to feel at ease in school. But the school systems could not pander to all whims. There was a balance to be struck between freedom of choice and the influence of religion on education. There was less of a problem in teaching subjects such as maths, which were more objective.

ALDE had misgivings about paragraph 5 on the financing of schools.

There were many recommendations arising from the educational traditions of countries. These resulted from history. For instance, in France, republican schools were set up in the wake of the clash between the state and the church. It was important that the traditions of different educational systems were respected.

      School systems should foster integration. It would be a shame if respect for choice in education resulted in people of different faiths being educated in different schools.

      Many countries had very developed educations sytems, but it was important to encourage the other countries.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Comte. The next speaker is Mr Donaldson, on behalf of the European Democrat Group, but he is not here. Would you like to respond at this stage, Ms Quintanilla? No, I therefore call Mr Phelan.

Mr PHELAN (Ireland) – I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points about this report and I join colleagues in commending the rapporteur on her efforts and the way in which she outlined the report to the Assembly.

From an Irish perspective, this is an opportune moment to have a discussion about education. I was struck by the comments by a socialist colleague from across the Irish Sea who spoke about the difference in terminology and how a private school in one country is something else in another. In Ireland, we do not have a strong tradition of public schools. Our education system is largely – indeed, almost completely – based on the religious patronage of schools. In the last few years, there have been other groups, such as parents’ groups, that have sought to establish schools that are not of any particular religious denomination.

At the moment, our socialist Minister for Education, Mr Quinn, is engaged in the important process of consulting parents across the country about the future denominational patronage of educational institutions. More than 90% of our primary schools are Catholic schools, and that figure is not sustainable into the future. I fully support Minister Quinn’s efforts to ensure that plebiscites are held and the views of parents are taken into account as to whether schools should remain under Catholic patronage. At secondary level, the figure is not as high, but still more than 80% of schools belong to a denomination of one sort or another.

From an Irish perspective, it is also opportune to have this discussion on education because we are in the middle of a constitutional referendum through which we are seeking to enshrine the rights of children in our constitution. This comes after several decades of revelations of failures and the scandalous abuse of children in families, by state agencies and, in particular, by Church members and Church authorities.

The right to choose the education of one’s child is protected under Irish law, and 90 years after the foundation of the independent Republic of Ireland it is especially important that this protection has been established for the minority Protestant traditions in our country. I commend the rapporteur and fully support the aims and objectives of the report, so that parents of any denomination and none will be able to come together in the future to decide the denomination or otherwise of the education that their children receive.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Phelan. The next speaker is Mr Voruz.

Mr VORUZ (Switzerland) said that it was, in part, a difficult report to digest and he quoted from a sentence which said “member States must provide for an education system which ensures equal opportunities and high-quality education for all pupils, to transmit both knowledge and the values nurturing the promotion of fundamental rights and democratic citizenship”. The report advocated changes to member states’ constitutions so as to guarantee the basics of an education free of charge. It would be difficult to guarantee freedom of choice in such a circumstance, and depending on which country it was, there might be challenging financial restrictions. This did not mean however, that countries did not have a strong public service obligation in respect of education, merely that there could be no insistence that all states fund private schools. If parents chose to educate their children at additional cost, that was quite acceptable but this could not be at the cost of the taxpayer. He would not be voting for the report this afternoon, subject to any amendments which were made.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Voruz. I next call Ms Schou.

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – I am pleased that we are discussing different aspects of education during this part-session. Tomorrow, we will look at the European higher education area, and today we look at the right to freedom of choice in education in Europe. In my opinion, these two themes are linked. The freedom of choice in education is enhanced by the European higher education area, which gives young people the opportunity to pursue their educational goals throughout Europe. It means that, in higher education, plurality in the education system is achieved through international co-operation. However, when it comes to secondary and especially primary education, each state must ensure the right to freedom of choice.

I congratulate the rapporteur on her thorough examination of how Council of Europe member states are giving students and families freedom of choice in education. It is uplifting to see her conclusion that this freedom is generally recognised by member states. However, this does not mean that we should consider our work in this area complete. We should continue to work to maintain plurality in the education system, and to make sure that every student and every family has a choice.

The number of private schools in Norway is low compared to other European countries. There are specific criteria that must be met in order for a private school to get state funding. Two main groups of private schools are those offering a different religious perspective and those based on alternative pedagogical methods. Both contribute to choice in education.

In the conclusions, the rapporteur points out that schools opened with a specific cultural or religious ethos cannot be exempt from respecting the fundamental values advocated by the Council of Europe. The freedom of parents to choose their children’s education based on their convictions must not infringe on the children’s fundamental rights and the opportunity to receive education in an objective, fair and non-discriminatory environment.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Schou. I call Mr Pintado.

Mr PINTADO (Spain) congratulated the rapporteur on embracing the legacy of the work undertaken by her predecessor Ms Fernandez-Capel. Different members held legitimate alternative positions and there was a difference in terminology between separate countries. It was important to distinguish between having a choice in respect of the model of education chosen and the choice of a school. It would not help to talk about private or public education at the expense of quality and excellence. His particular hope was that further developments would be free of prejudice and would enjoy proper equality of opportunity in high–quality education. In Spain, the difference in the cost of administration in public and private schools was as much as 30%.

(Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Rouquet).

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Pintado. I call Ms Acketoft.

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – It sounds as though we are all in agreement on this topic, but the devil is always in the detail; when we discuss the details, differences will emerge. I believe that, as previous speakers have suggested, one of the state’s most important tasks is to produce well-educated younger generations. I would go so far as to say that we will not have functioning democracies without well-educated students and members of society.

As my colleague Mr Comte said, it is very hard to have something bad to say about a report calling for the right to freedom of choice in education. I strongly support that freedom for many reasons. It allows families to choose whether they want to send their children to a small village school, whether to use a special pedagogic method, or whether they want to start their own school – it allows them to have the schooling they wish to have. It allows parents to start a school and become more involved in their children’s everyday life and upbringing. It allows teachers to start their own schools. It also allows women more career opportunities – many teachers are women – and to start their own businesses. For many such reasons, I support the free, so-called private schools. There are many good reasons why a wide palette of schools should exist and why I support that fully.

Publicly funded, so-called private schools, or free schools as we call them in Sweden – we do not have any private schools; school are free and publicly funded – are very good, so long as they: follow the national curriculum; are subject to inspections and quality measurements; do not have any discriminatory selection criteria; cater for specific needs, just as a state-run school would do; have teachers who have a professional degree; and their confessional expressions are subject to freedom of choice for the student and hence are not an intrinsic part of the curriculum. To me, that promotes pluralism and protection of students.

An earlier speaker said that freedom of choice in education should mean freedom of choice for the child, and I very much second that. It is not about preserving old groupings or old prejudices. It does not mean the right of families to lock their children in and not give them the opportunities to think outside the box. In my view, the report would benefit from the amendments. I will of course support it, but I ask members to read it as freedom of choice for children, not their parents.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Acketoft. I call Ms Bilgehan.

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) was grateful to the rapporteur for the patience and kindness she had shown to her fellow members of the Committee, which had been supported by an excellent secretariat. The Committee had been virtually unanimous in its conclusions in respect of students, fairness, and fundamental values. One issue that had occupied her mind was when students would be able to learn autonomously and not necessarily follow the wishes of their parents. Safety nets provided by the state were necessary and possible. All states provided some support for education, and it was only a minority of 10 which did not give any funding to private schools. This was certainly an important report and she looked forward to what would be an interesting debate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Diaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) supported the report, but not because the rapporteur was Spanish and a friend of his; when he disagreed with his co-nationals he said so. The report took a very moderate position and walked a very careful line. He would not approve of it otherwise, because he did not like extremism as a style. The rapporteur had been patient with all the ideas and suggestions put to her, and had proved able to separate her personal views from those which were generally accepted. The mark of a democracy was one’s approach to those with whom one disagreed.

He himself had been the recipient of a student grant, without which he would not have been able to study. Finance was the determining factor. There was a danger that individual talent could be lost if one’s parents were not sufficiently well off. As a member representing the Canaries, he was also very aware that being remote from centres of learning could be problematic. Access was the first plank of the education system. It would be disastrous if lack of funding made it impossible to encourage talent. It was true that if you were in need of a surgical procedure you would seek out the best surgeon; the same was true of education. He had no objection to private education, but the basic guarantee ought to be provided in the public sector. The private sector could not function unless guaranteed by the public sector. Public sector education embodied democratic values and was safe from ideological manipulation. Its values could expand to the private sector as well.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Renato Farina.

Mr Renato FARINA (Italy) said that freedom of education was an important subject. Especially in times of austerity, it was vital to find a way of freeing up the energy which was being blocked. The school system in Italy was monolithic. What was needed was courageous innovation and blue sky thinking. The myth of “one size fits all” education had been exploded by the work of Charles Glen, whose research had included France, the Netherlands and Italy. In Italy there was talk of a “parity system”, as if anything not in the statutory sector was merely a poor copy. This idea limited freedom. The proposal was that the state should stop running schools and interfering in education, but rather leave it to civil society and the creative energy of those running schools. The state should guarantee that every free school should be for everybody. Schools could easily become dominated by interest groups. Every group wishing to run a school should meet certain criteria, after which it should be free to open schools and even universities in a manner that would meet the needs of society. This approach would have many advantages, such as freedom from uniform syllabuses. This would mean, for example, that religious education need not be restricted to one lesson a week.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Nicolaides.

Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – I congratulate Ms Quintanilla on this well-researched report. It is an accomplishment to have managed to represent the state of play in the various education systems in the wider European area, taking into account the diversity of the systems and the specifics of public versus private schools. Pluralism and the promotion of democratic citizenship in national education in Europe mean that it is essential that the state acts as a facilitator and not a stumbling block as regards freedom of choice in education for both parents and children. That core principle is enshrined in Article 2 of the additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and states have an obligation fully to comply with it and to guarantee the right to an effective and non-discriminatory education.

Most often, the selection of a preferred educational establishment is conditioned by cultural and religious beliefs. As such, they should be respected by state authorities at all levels, provided these convictions do not run contrary to the fundamental values and principles of the Council of Europe. Bearing in mind the protection of children’s best interests, the state has a duty to contain any effort aimed at indoctrinating children and to redress any attempts that violate the rights of children, especially in terms of their dignity and physical and psychological integrity. At the same time, the state must also fully respect and not intervene in the parents’ duty and responsibility to provide direction to their children.

There is a delicate balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the right of private establishments to tailor their academic programmes and teaching methods to the preferences of parents and the public and, on the other hand, the functioning of the same schools in line with the terms and conditions that govern schools established by public authorities. In that context, public authorities must be in a position to supervise the healthy operation of private establishments through appropriate control mechanisms and to provide financial support to families, on the basis of the same conditions that govern financial support in public schools. In cases of law-abiding private establishments, it is crucial that the state recognises and supports the validity of the education offered.

What is at stake here is the provision of the best quality education to our future generation. This can be accomplished in both private entities and public institutions. Investing in education that will empower children to become confident and independent individuals is our biggest challenge, and it is one that we must win if we want to see our societies progress and our democratic institutions stand the test of time. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Nicolaides. I call Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I thank our honourable and distinguished Spanish colleague, Ms Carmen Quintanilla, for her excellent work. Education is an important matter since it means building the future of our societies.

It seemed to me that one aspect of education was left out of this document but, given its importance, it should at least be mentioned. As far as I know, around 20% of the European population live as a national minority, so every fifth European may be interested in the possibility of educating children in their native or mother tongue, which is a basic element of human rights. We should talk about this because in some corners of Europe this point is not obvious. One of our well-known poets, Sándor Reményik, who after the First World War himself became a member of the Hungarian minority in Transylvania, wrote in one of his poems: “Safeguard churches and schools”. He was right; those two institutions form the backbone of a community.

We all know that nowadays that Europe has a slogan, “Unity through diversity”. If we lose a community, that means that we lose human and cultural values, we lose a way of thinking and Europe is poorer. When we think about the freedom of choice in education, we should think about those facts. Council of Europe states should ensure that their citizens have the possibility of choosing education in their mother tongue.

Let us think about the place where we are now. Here in Alsace after the Second World War it was not “chic”, as we say in French, to speak German or the Alsace dialect. Today, as I saw in a presentation made for the European Parliament, the number of bilingual classes is rising constantly. In Romania, for instance, the teaching of history and geography in one’s mother tongue has finally been accepted within the past year. Those two disciplines are very important for identity preservation; unless we manage to teach European history in an evenly balanced way, we cannot hope to have reconciliation between European nations.

I underline that education should set the direction for partnership and co-operation for the young European generation. Only real co-operation and partnership between our nations can ensure the future of Europe, and this should be taught in every school and in every European language.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. I call Mr Schennach.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) complimented the rapporteur on the passion accompanying her presentation of the report. This debate was not really about parents: the main concern should be children. When a child was born it should have equal opportunities, regardless of religion or any other factor. It was an obligation of the state to offer the same opportunities to all. Parents, of course, had an interest. Different pedagogical and philosophical models were followed, including religious beliefs. For example, some parents wanted Montessori or Waldorf Steiner education, and in Austria there were some feminist secondary schools, while in some alternative schools the parents were the teachers. It was important to offer both equal opportunities and variety of choice. In Germany and Austria, faith schools were covered by a concordat, and all schools had to have the same rules. It was not a question of establishing an elite system in private schools. Austria had a good state system, including multilingual schools, and there were plans to offer Czech and Slovak speaking education. The challenge posed by migration had to be accepted, so that the right opportunities could be offered to all children.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. I call Ms Erkal Kara.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) ) congratulated the rapporteur on her extremely objective work. She supported the freedom to choose education and it was incumbent upon governments to provide the legislative and practical framework needed to realise it. It was important to explore how value could be added to education for economic reasons. Turkey needed to make the most of its human capital for the sake of its economy. Currently, the country could not cope with structural change without wider reform. Young people were a greater proportion of the population in Turkey than in most of Europe, and this had an impact on the labour market. The advantages of the freedom to choose education included a broader potential choice of schools. Education was the bedrock of a democratic society. Private education if not properly managed could lead to indoctrination of views contrary to European values. The increase in the numbers of students in the private sector in Turkey was a source of concern; at present private schools had a 2% share. The resources of the state were insufficient to cater for the total need for education, and the private sector needed a more prominent role. Measures had been announced to boost the private sector, and she hoped this would happen quickly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Erkal Kara. The next speaker is Ms Guţu.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) congratulated Ms Quintanilla on her well-argued report. The report tackled access to education in both the public and private sectors and freedom of choice for parents and pupils. There was a problem, though, with its recommendation of public funding for private schools. This should not be an obligation of the state.

Parents had the right under the Convention to educate their children according to their religious or philosophical views. But the European tradition was based on public provision of education and although private schools were important, the state should not provide funding for private education, especially in the current economic situation. In the former Soviet Union, after independence there was a multiplication of private schools set up not to improve education, but as commercial concerns. In Moldova there were more private universities than public—and rather more than the small population of the country would suggest was necessary.

It was important for states to set up competent supervisory and inspection mechanisms in order to make sure that private schools were providing an appropriate education.

She welcomed the inclusion of non-discrimination in the report. But this was disputed in society at large. Some religious communties had established private schools because they did not like the culture of pluralism in the public sector.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Guţu. The next speaker is Mr McNamara.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – First, I commend Ms Quintanilla on her excellent report, as many others have done. However, I join Mr Connarty in urging the Assembly to support Amendments 3 and 4, which would delete sub-paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, which call for the same financial benefits to be granted to the families of pupils who attend private schools as are granted to the families of pupils at public schools, and which recommend the ongoing funding of private institutions by the state. I call on the Assembly to delete those, and should like to refer to practice in my state, Ireland.

I note that the rapporteur states in the report: “In Spain, private schools that fulfil all normative standards and which offer free education can receive public funding.” Unfortunately, in Ireland, we go one step further: private schools demand fees from pupils or their parents – and let us be real: it is the parents who pay the fees of children who are in primary school, and indeed post-primary school. Those schools continue to receive funding. What does that mean in practice? It means that institutions that discriminate on the basis of religion, and even on the basis of a parent’s ability to pay for their child’s education, continue to receive funding from the state in these recessionary times.

Some €100 million is put into the funding of private schools. That money enables those schools greatly to reduce pupil-to-teacher ratios from the average, which is one teacher for just over 20 pupils. The parents of pupils in those schools can top up the funding that those schools receive with fees of up to €5 000; that is what is charged by a number of private schools across Ireland.

We should put that €100 million towards breaking the cycle of disadvantage that has continued unabated in Ireland since 1916, when there was a revolution that marked the violent birth pangs of the Irish state, and when the signatories of a proclamation promised to cherish all the children of the nation equally. Unfortunately, like most of the promises in the proclamation of independence, that was ignored by the state that followed, and the Irish state continues to cherish privilege, rather than the equality of all children. I urge the Assembly not to go down the same road, and to support the amendments deleting sub-paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr McNamara. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I thank Ms Quintanilla for the comprehensive work done in her report. She gave an outstanding summary of the issues relating to the right to choice in education in Europe. I fully support its adoption. I absolutely agree with her main statement that member states must operate an educational system that ensures equal opportunities and high-quality education for all pupils.

The right to choice in education is deeply linked to the right to education and to freedom of conscience, which member states are obliged to respect. The right to education in one’s mother tongue and in traditional institutions run by traditional churches may reasonably be said to follow on from the above-mentioned rights.

To demonstrate the importance of the adoption of the resolution proposed by the rapporteur, let me give you an example of how those basic principles could be threatened by a member state that had committed itself to abiding by the laws of the Council of Europe but was, in practice, in contravention of that obligation. Let me outline the fate of one of our most important high schools, the Székely Mikó Kollégium, of the Hungarians living in Romania. I must also refer to the pending case of the medical university of Marosvásárhely, a city half of whose inhabitants are Hungarians, where the education of Hungarians is being hindered by administrative methods.

As I have mentioned many times in this Chamber, Romania gained a huge amount of territory from Hungary after the First World War as a result of the unjust treaty of Trianon, with the result that a great Hungarian population of 1.5 million now lives in Transylvania. These people have their own specific culture, heritage, language and identity. Romania still fails to fill its obligations to ensure the highest levels of collective rights for the Hungarian community and, in particular, to ensure territorial autonomy for a special Hungarian-linked community, the 700 000 Szeklers, who are the predominant majority in their regions. The Szekler people voted in a referendum to create an autonomous territory called Székelyföld – Szeklerland. A draft law on their autonomous status was rejected by both Houses of the Romanian Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that it fully conforms with the relevant clause of the Council of Europe and refers back to models that function well, such as South Tyrol in Italy and Catalonia in Spain.

The restitution of assets, including schools, nationalised during the Communist period is an eminent obligation on the Romanian state, deriving from commitments to the Council of Europe. Instead of continuing this restitution, which has taken too long and is still far from being accomplished, a Romanian court has lately restored to state ownership the Székely Mikó Kollégium, which had been returned to the Reformed Church within the restitution framework. Moreover, three members of the restitution committee, including a former state secretary, were condemned to three years’ imprisonment, yet the conviction of the only ethnic Romanian member was suspended. Some 30 000 people demonstrated in Sepsiszentgyörgy, the city in which this school is located, and there was a demonstration in front of the Romanian embassy in Budapest. Obviously, this decision is eligible to stop the process of restitution. So I believe that Romania should ensure the right to education, the protection of property and the right to self-determination of Hungarians living in Transylvania, as the Székely Nemzeti Tanács – the Szekler national council – wants.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. That concludes the list of speakers.

I call Ms Quintanilla to reply. You have three minutes.

Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain) thanked those who had taken part in the debate. She was encouraged by their words. The Assembly had understood the message of the report, which was based on the principles of tolerance and choice. The report sought to get through to the public at large and not be resticted by ideology. The right to education had to prevail over other considerations. Everyone could agree that parents should have a choice.

She was not trying to build fences or walls. In Spain private schools were open to people of all religions or groups: parents took a conscious decision to send their children to those schools. She had visited several private schools in Strasbourg and was pleased to have seen Muslim and Jewish children learning side by side. That was an example of the open-mindedness that was required.

The report sought to benefit everybody and was not designed to advocate funding for private schools at the expense of the public sector. A member had spoken about public funding suffering, but that was not what the report was about. It was about bringing people together.

Millions of citizens looked to members to carry the torch of freedom in the Assembly. She thanked members of the Assembly and all those who had worked on the report.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Quintanilla. Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Kaźmierczak wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr KAŹMIERCZAK (Poland) – Thanks to the rapporteur, Ms Quintanilla, the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media had some interesting and sometimes hot debates. The issue of freedom of choice in education has many different facets, and the report and draft resolution focus on most, but probably not all, of them. That was our choice, because we thought it was more important to set out the common ground on these issues, which are dividing us, than to be exhaustive. We achieved that in respect of a significant number of crucial elements, although the interventions have shown that a dividing line is still in place. It relates to the financing of institutions that are not publicly run. Ms Quintanilla has insisted on the collaborative method, and I must tell those who did not participate in our debates in the committee that it was far from being the starting point; people were strongly fighting for much more firm positions.

I pay tribute to the rapporteur. She won numerous battles, because she showed us her will to find solutions rather than to fight. She also lost battles, including some today, yet she remains honestly behind the report. For those reasons, my final word on the matter is to say that we may have different opinions on how national education systems should work and on the place that private schools should have within them, but all of us should be ready to follow the benchmarks set by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that no matter the issue of the individual votes on the amendments, all of us can finally vote unanimously for the report, which opens the way towards a deeper understanding of what the right to freedom of choice in education is and on how it could be effectively implemented in all our member states.

THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution in Document 13010 to which six amendments have been tabled.

I understand that the vice-chairperson of the committee wishes to propose that Amendment 2, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

Is that so, Mr Kaźmierczak?

Mr KAŹMIERCZAK (Poland) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendment 2 has been agreed.

The following amendment was adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Guţu, Mr Xuclà, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Corsini, Mr G. Farina, Mr Preda and Mr Toshev, which is, in paragraph 4.5 of the draft resolution, after the words “regular inspections”, to add the following words: “, accreditation processes and quality assurance assessments”.

Explanatory note: The purpose of the amendment is simply to elaborate the idea of regular inspections of the state of private and public education establishments.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Baroness Eccles, Mr Sannen, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Mr Härstedt, Mr Dobbin and Mr Connarty, which is, in the draft resolution, before paragraph 5.1, to insert the following paragraph:

“ensure that sufficient funding is made available to allow all children to access statutory education provision in private education establishments if sufficient provision is not available within the public-run school sector;”.

I call Mr Connarty to support Amendment 1.

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – I am a bit surprised. I understood that this amendment had also been accepted by the committee. I expected it to be adopted on the same basis as Amendment 2, because it was carried in the committee without opposition. I do not understand what we are doing here. I am happy to speak to it, but I had committee support for it. Something is going on.

The amendment has cross-party support. It states that if a statutory authority has a duty to supply education, and if it is not available in the public sector, it should be paid for in the private sector. That is what happened for many pupils with special educational needs in the United Kingdom when private provision was all that was available for those needs.

THE PRESIDENT – We can take amendments formally only if they are agreed unanimously.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr KAŹMIERCZAK (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Michel, Mr Benton, Lord Tomlinson, Mr Binley and Mr Connarty, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 5.1.

I call Mr Michel to support Amendment 3.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that the report called for the funding of private schools without conditions and as such had to be amended.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Volontè.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) said that the purpose of this section of the report was to promote freedom of choice and keeping it in was in the interest of balance.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr KAŹMIERCZAK (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Michel, Mr Benton, Lord Tomlinson, Mr Binley and Mr Connarty, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 5.2.

I call Mr Michel to support Amendment 4.

Mr MICHEL (France) – The amendment speaks for itself.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Volontè.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) asked how freedom of choice would be possible if private schools were not funded.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr KAŹMIERCZAK (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13010, as amended.

The vote is open.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.)

3. Current affairs debate: the Safarov case

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The final item of business this afternoon is the current affairs debate on the Safarov case. Any current affairs debate is limited to one and a half hours. The first speaker, chosen by the Bureau, will be Mr Chope, who is allowed ten minutes. Speaking time for other speakers in the debate will be limited to three minutes, as agreed on Monday.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – It gives me great pleasure to introduce the debate, which was requested by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which in turn had been asked by the Bureau to look at the issue following the news that Mr Safarov had been transferred as a prisoner from Hungary to Azerbaijan and then immediately pardoned. The background to the case is probably familiar to most members of the Assembly. On 6 September the committee discussed this and decided that it was a matter of severe gravity. That is because we are concerned with the rule of law, and it is in the context of the rule of law that I wish to address my opening remarks.

I will first set out the facts. On 19 February 2004, while attending a NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace training programme in Budapest, Ramil Safarov, a lieutenant in the Azerbaijani Army, killed a fellow attendee, a lieutenant in the Armenian Army, Gurgen Margaryan, with an axe. In 2006 he was sentenced in Hungary to life imprisonment with an expectation to serve a minimum of 30 years. After his conviction he applied for a prisoner transfer under Article 12 of the Strasbourg Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and was transferred back to Azerbaijan on 31 August 2012. On arrival, he was pardoned by the Azerbaijani President, promoted to the rank of major and given an apartment and more than eight years’ worth of back pay, actions that you, Mr President, the Secretary General, the Director General and almost everyone condemned as the glorification of criminal behaviour.

Before considering the convention, it is worth briefly looking at the definition of a pardon, because some people seem to think that Mr Safarov is not guilty of the offences for which he was convicted and imprisoned. “Black’s Law Dictionary “ defines a pardon as: “An act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. “ I emphasise that a pardon relates to a crime that has been committed, so there can be no dispute that it was committed and that it merited a severe prison sentence.

That takes us to how it came about that Mr Safarov was moved from the Hungarian jail, where he was serving the eighth year of his sentence, to Azerbaijan. He had applied for a transfer under the provisions of the convention, which was introduced in 1983 and has been ratified by a large number of member states of the Council of Europe and other countries overseas. I will refer, without irony, to its preamble, which states that the signatories: “Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members… Considering that such co-operation should further the ends of justice and the social rehabilitation of sentenced persons; Considering that these objectives require that foreigners who are deprived of their liberty as a result of their commission of a criminal offence should be given the opportunity to serve their sentences within their own society; and Considering that this aim can best be achieved by having them transferred to their own countries “ and then goes on to set out the arrangements for such transfers.

I think that it has come as a big surprise, certainly to members of this Assembly and to the international community, that, apart from all the articles dealing with the provisions of transfer, pursuant to that preamble, at the heart of the convention is a provision, set out in Article 12, that effectively contradicts everything else in the convention. Article 12 states: “Each Party may grant pardon, amnesty or commutation of the sentence in accordance with its Constitution or other laws. “That means that when Safarov was returned to Azerbaijan the Azeri authorities could rightly say that, under the provisions of Article 12, they could exercise a pardon and that it would be in accordance with the law.

My view, and I think it is the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, is that we are talking about not just the law, but the rule of law. Where does it leave the rule of law if we have a situation in which people who have been convicted of serious crimes find that they are returned to their home country and then are glorified for those crimes? What sort of an example does that set? We then get condemnation. If there is a rule of law, it applies not only to issues relating to murder, but to international law. By way of balance, I will say that there have been a whole series of United Nations resolutions dating from 1993. I note that United Nations Security Council Resolution 853, passed on 29 July 1993, stated that it: “Condemns the seizure of the district of Agdam and of all other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic”. That, again, was a condemnation. The UN has since passed a number of other resolutions and has always said at the very end that it “decides to remain seized of the matter “.

The problem is that nothing has happened. We have the so-called Minsk process, but it is not delivering justice or the international rule of law. Both sides in the conflict are now saying that they feel free to break the rule of law and that is what is so depressing. One breach of the rule of law should not be a justification for another country to breach it. Somehow, we in this Assembly must try to persuade the international community to get serious about the problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Tensions are rising all the time and, although there are political statements, no one seems to be concentrating on the key issue, which is how we enforce the international rule of law, as interpreted by the United Nations Security Council – or the rule of law as we understand it, which expects prisoners who have been condemned and duly sentenced to serve their sentences and not to be glorified by their countries because the victim of their crime happened to be from a nationality that is not very popular in that country, to put it neutrally.

This issue is well worthy of our attention. Obviously, I and other members of the Committee will listen to this current affairs debate, but the question is what will happen afterwards. Members might well ask the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to consider the convention and see whether Article 12, for example, is consistent with the principles of the rule of law. A pardon is a discretionary executive act and can result in some very arbitrary decisions. Many of us might think that exercising a pardon in such a way goes completely contrary to the principles of the rule of law and it might be worth consideration by the committee. I do not think we can just talk about it; we must find a way to prevent such occurrences. We can condemn such things, which I think we do, but we need to find a way of resolving the issues so that two member countries of our Council of Europe can live peacefully together.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Chope, for opening the debate. I call Mr Rochebloine to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that the scandalous circumstances of the transfer of Mr Safarov to Azerbaijan were well known. It was impossible not to feel indignant when a person condemned for life was freed after only six years, as well as being promoted and celebrated as a national hero. He extended his compassion to the family of Gurgen Margaryan, upon whom this new pain had been inflicted. He associated himself with the indignation of Armenians and other nations. The case raised concerns about the prospects for a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh question. French politicians had often been accused of ignoring the peaceful intent of President Aliyev, but how could they have faith in a leader who made a hero of a murderer? How could they negotiate with a power which did not negotiate in good faith, and which twisted values? The right to a fair trial was a fundamental right upheld by the Council of Europe, as was the obligation to respect the rulings of courts. The Hungarian government had reduced a court judgment to nothing, contradicting their own justice system in the process. The release of Mr Safarov would lead to problems for European unity. How could a great nation sell its dignity in order to have its debt paid by an oil dictator? The Assembly should conduct an in-depth inquiry into the case.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Lord Anderson to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I support everything that has been said by Mr Chope and want to make two preliminary points. This is not a debate about Nagorno-Karabakh, and we are not re-trying Mr Safarov. He was properly convicted of a brutal murder and was expected to serve 30 years.

I have some questions for our Hungarian and Azeri colleagues. The Hungarian case is simple: Hungary acted in good faith, having received assurances from Azerbaijan that the sentence would be enforced. It was thus in full compliance with the terms of the Strasbourg convention. There appears to be no doubt that Hungary acted technically in accordance with the convention, as Mr Chope said, but puzzling questions remain. Why was Armenia not consulted? The Armenians, of course, severed diplomatic relations with Hungary immediately after. Why were the Foreign Minister and Justice Minister in Hungary outside the loop or opposed when the Minister for External Trade Relations was centre stage? Why was the Hungarian reaction so restrained? Some days afterwards, Hungary expressed “discontent”. Can our Hungarian colleagues give a categorical assurance that there were no financial or other considerations behind the transfer? It is alleged that £3 billion was promised in bonds. If so, that was clearly outside the spirit of the convention.

I ask our Azeri colleagues how they would respond if the boot were on the other foot. What would you do if the situation were reversed and Armenia pardoned one of your murderers? Is it true, as Hungary states, that the Azeri Government assured Hungary that a “person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 25 years “ and that Mr Safarov’s “sentence would be immediately enforced “? If so, how can we reconcile those assurances with what happened? As Mr Chope has said, immediately on transfer Mr Safarov was pardoned, promoted and given eight years’ back pay and a luxury apartment. Can that be construed as anything other than glorification of the act of murder and encouragement to others to do the same? Do our Azeri colleagues not accept that their government’s response will have a negative effect on relations in the region, be an obstacle to reconciliation and make solving the regional problem even more difficult?

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Anderson. I call Ms Brasseur, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the international community and the Council of Europe had been shocked by the Safarov case. The ALDE Group shared the indignation already expressed by the President and Secretary-General of the Assembly. To turn a criminal into a hero was simply intolerable, no matter where it happened or which country did it. The attempt to whitewash the act of the murderer was also unacceptable; it had been argued that he had been defending the dignity of the people of Azerbaijan. National honour should never be used as a pretext for criminal acts or an attack on human life. The case was a reminder of the persistent lack of will shown by two member states to peacefully resolve a conflict in which they had been engaged for many years. The consequences would be tragic. Turning a murder into a heroic act and exacerbating tensions between the two countries would make a resolution more difficult to achieve. One had to ask what kind of ill-will or shortcomings in the legal text had led to the misuse of an international legal instrument. The glorification of a crime called into question the credibility of the country. She expressed sympathy with the family of the victim of this cruel murder. It was imperative strongly to condemn the glorification of this criminal act. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy ought to take up the case, to investigate whether legal instruments had been dishonestly abused in order to glorify a rank murderer.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Brasseur. I call Ms Woldseth, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I must admit that I was worried when I heard that the transfer of Safarov from Hungary to Azerbaijan had resulted in increased tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Many of the member state countries have a history of occupational conflicts. I think that all members of this Assembly are hoping for conflicts between member states to be resolved; in fact we are actively working to resolve conflict through our focus on safeguarding human rights, the rule of law and democracy. I do not think that there are any members of our Assembly who would not like to see the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan resolved. I therefore appreciate that the Assembly is an arena where representatives of both countries meet, and where we are not afraid to discuss difficult topics.

      We are now discussing a case that has been dealt with in the Hungarian legal system, and I do not think that it is our role to intervene in specific cases in the legal systems of member countries. Our role is to look at the status of the rule of law and, through our monitoring procedures, to make recommendations to member states. We can look at how members are following up their commitments under the Convention on Human Rights. Another area that we should look at is impunity, which is something that we should work to fight. It is important that all countries consider how their actions are interpreted by other countries.

      On behalf of the European Democrat Group, I underline that it is of great importance that Armenia and Azerbaijan are talking to each other, although it is very sad that a case such as the one that we are discussing is what has brought renewed attention to their conflict. I sincerely hope that dialogue will continue between those countries and contribute to reconciliation.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Woldseth. I now call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I seem to be in a different debate from Ms Woldseth. I am not in a debate about what is happening between Armenia and Azerbaijan; that is nothing to do with this issue, and we should stick to the essence. Should citizens of a country convicted and imprisoned abroad be granted, under certain circumstances, the right to serve a part of their imprisonment at home in their own country? Yes; under the Strasbourg convention of the Council of Europe, that right exists, and we as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council should do our utmost to protect it as it is part of our civilisation.

The Strasbourg convention was a step forward when it entered into force many years ago. It was a success for the Council of Europe and we should cherish it. It is for that reason that what has happened in the so-called Safarov case is a blatant offence. A murderer – there is no doubt about that, as Mr Chope explained – convicted in 2006, five years after Azerbaijan ratified the Strasbourg convention, and serving his life sentence in Hungary, was allowed under that convention to serve the rest of his term in Azerbaijan. Then, on his return to Azerbaijan, he was immediately pardoned by the President, who in my opinion abused the Strasbourg convention by saying, “Listen, it is in Article 12; I am doing what I am allowed to”. We as an Assembly should consider this a clear violation of the essence of the Strasbourg convention, a convention of which we should be proud. It is also a clear violation of the rule of law, as Christopher Chope emphasised so eloquently. Countries that ratify conventions and thereafter say “We have nothing to do with the spirit of this law” do not understand the spirit of it.

      In my opinion, the Safarov case is also a clear violation of the very values of this Assembly and this Organisation. My Group of the Unified European Left calls on the Azeri Government to reconsider what it has done because it violates the convention. I also remind members on behalf of my group that just one hour ago we accepted, with a large majority, a code of conduct for members of this Assembly, which states in paragraph 18: “Members shall respect the values of the Council of Europe and the general principles of behaviour of the Assembly and not take any action which would cause damage to the reputation and integrity of the Assembly or its members.” Anyone who does not speak against the behaviour of the Azeri Government violates that paragraph of the code, and I hope that no members do so.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Kox. The next speaker is Mr Vejkey.

Mr VEJKEY (Hungary) – Every aspect of the transfer was in accordance with the 1983 Strasbourg Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, and the procedure was transparent. The way in which Safarov was transferred to Azerbaijan does correspond with the practice that Hungary generally adopts in similar cases. Every statement indicating that the case was influenced by energy relations between Hungary and Azerbaijan does not square with the facts.

As the conditions specified in the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons were met in the Safarov case, his transfer was authorised by the Minister of Public Administration and Justice, and Safarov was transferred to Azerbaijan on 31 August 2012. Hungary has acted for the best, and the humanitarian aspects were taken into consideration.

The Government of Hungary was appalled to receive the news about the decision of the Azerbaijanis to grant Safarov a pardon. Hungary refuses to accept that, and condemns the actions of Azerbaijan. The immediate pardon contradicts the essence of the 1983 Strasbourg convention. The presidential act is in sharp contravention of the commitment that Azerbaijan gave in a letter, dated 15 August 2012, from the Deputy Minister of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan and addressed to the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice in Hungary.

On 2 September 2012, the Parliamentary State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zsolt Németh, asked Vilayat Guliyev, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Hungary, to his office to inform him of the position of the Hungarian Government, and handed over a diplomatic note to the ambassador.

The transfer of Safarov was a purely legal matter, and was not directed against Armenia, and it can in no way be regarded as an insult to the Armenian people.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Vejkey. I call Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France) said that the Safarov case touched on values at the heart of the Council of Europe. A man had been bludgeoned to death with an axe to satisfy an anachronistic nationalistic urge.

Safarov had been sentenced to life imprisonment, then extradited and promoted on his return to Azerbaijan. He was concerned to see the Hungarian Government playing with fire in a region where the embers were still not cold. This risked compromising the security of the South Caucasus and of Armenians around the world.

The reaction of the Azerbaijani government was even more troubling. The Council of Europe had been founded on the premise of “Never Again”. There should never again be murderous hatred. The actions of this government were not worthy of a Council of Europe member.

      Some Azerbaijanis had pointed to the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, but this could not justify murderous revenge. The murder was particularly horrific because it took place during a meeting of the Partnership for Peace. He was worried about the future of the Minsk process.

      The President had said that he wanted to resolve frozen conflicts so the Assembly had to take steps. Its honour was at stake.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I call Mr Harutyunyan.

      Mr HARUTYUNYAN (Armenia) – What happened is well known: a person sentenced to life imprisonment by the Hungarian courts was transferred to Azerbaijan and, immediately on his arrival, was pardoned and set free. The Hungarian judge cited as the reason for the sentence the premeditated nature and brutality of the crime, and the fact that Safarov showed no remorse for his deeds. The heinous crime was glorified, justified and generously rewarded by a member state of this Assembly.

      I thank the President of the Assembly, the Secretary General and the Human Rights Commissioner for their prompt and unambiguous condemnation. However, there has been no word of regret or condemnation from any Azerbaijani state official whatever. On the contrary, racist and xenophobic statements against Armenians from the Azerbaijani leadership became habitual. Unfortunately, right after unanimous condemnation of Azerbaijan’s actions in the Safarov case by the international community, Azerbaijani state officials attempted to justify their actions in the Azerbaijani mass media, and disseminated fabricated information about the imminent threat from a non-existent Armenian terrorist organisation.

      That is a dangerous path to take, because it shows that to prove its claims, the Azerbaijani regime is capable of fabricating the idea that there was provocation, so as to put the blame on Armenia and Armenians. The international community should be aware of this KGB-style tactic. Moreover, to justify the murder, high-ranking officials misled Azerbaijani society by stating that Safarov committed the murder while defending the honour of the Azerbaijani flag, or because he had witnessed how the Armenians killed his relatives, including his sister. Following eyewitness accounts, those claims were entirely rejected by the court of an EU member state.

      Let me be clear: attempts to bring regional or other aspects into the case are just efforts to justify the murder and overrule justice. This case is not about relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan; it is about the termination of justice and the violation of the most basic human right – the right to life. It is about the abuse of a Council of Europe convention to justify the release of a murderer. It is about a member state’s leadership openly and unapologetically propagating and supporting hatred and intolerance towards a whole nation, and promoting and rewarding murder, in violation of the values of this Organisation.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Harutyunyan. I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) noted, in his capacity as rapporteur for one of the countries involved, that the Assembly would hear different versions of events from the different parties, which would contradict each other.

He utterly condemned the objectionable event and the subsequent actions of the Azerbaijani Government. But it was not clear to him how it related to international conventions. Mr Chope’s proposal was interesting. When he visited the region in November he would ask about the legal context and he also hoped that the Legal Affairs Committee could help the Assembly to understand the matter.

There was much talk of frozen conflicts but these were active conflicts. Not only was there Nagorno-Karabakh, but also Transnistria and Cyprus.

He welcomed the President’s desire to bring the delegations of Azerbaijan and Armenia together to discuss the matter and make progress. But the Assembly had to remember that those countries had been in conflict for 20 years with one country occupying 13 % of the territory of the other. Nonetheless nothing could justify the actions of Safarov or of the Azerbaijani Government.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. The next speaker is Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that the murder was a shameful event, as was the extradition and the behaviour of the Azerbaijani Government. It seemed that Armenocide was the grandest act one could commit in Azerbaijan. The monster Safarov had been welcomed back to his homeland and some members of the Azerbaijani delegation to this Assembly had welcomed him at the airport. It was a fiasco of justice and one of the greatest disgraces of Europe. Azerbaijan had used its caviar and petrol dollars to buy others and to win success in the Olympic Games. But the Council of Europe should take action to protect its own reputation.

It was clear to all that Nagorno-Karabakh should never become part of a state where ethnic murder was lionised. Azerbaijan had paid an outrageous ransom in order to bring home a cowardly monster who had bludgeoned an innocent man in his sleep. This had to be condemned by the civilised world. She doubted whether Azerbaijan still had a right to be part of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Zohrabyan. The next speaker is Mr Abbasov.

      Mr ABBASOV (Azerbaijan) – Today, our Armenian colleagues are doing their best to politicise the deeds of the Azerbaijani authorities in pardoning Ramil Safarov. Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that the transfer and pardon were in full compliance with international law and the national legislation of Azerbaijan. Having considered the fact that Mr Safarov had served eight years of his sentence, the President of Azerbaijan pardoned the officer of the Azerbaijan Republic, as is the sovereign right of the head of state.

      The politicisation of the issue follows on from the Armenian side’s protraction of the negotiation process and the fact that Armenia is keeping under its occupation 20% of the territories of Azerbaijan. The conflict has been protracted, which has increased the social problems of refugees and internally displaced persons, and has kept the situation tense in almost the entire South Caucasus region. It should be realised that a speedy solution to the conflict over mountainous Karabakh will restore peace in the South Caucasus, ensure the secure co-existence of the indigenous peoples and create favourable conditions for active economic co-operation. Azerbaijan is a necessary, energetic partner in the region, and that is profitable for each neighbouring country.

      The Council of Europe takes an interest in the security and administrative supervision of the territories for the purpose of ensuring the rights and freedoms of everyone living there. At the moment, Azerbaijan is not capable of taking responsibility for the safety of its citizens living in territories controlled by Armenia. We pin our hopes for a peaceful solution to the conflict that preserves the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan on the principles of international law. To achieve such a solution, each participant in the negotiations needs to take a constructive approach. With a view to the development of mountainous Karabakh, Azerbaijan will take all positive measures in favour of its citizens residing in the region, but legitimate and constitutional power should be restored in mountainous Karabakh. We should all seek to find a speedy solution to the conflict. That is in the interest of the Council of Europe, as a resolution of the conflict will ensure stability and security on the southern borders of Europe.

My opinion and that of our colleagues is that it is very important to have a hearing in this Assembly on the Khojaly tragedy – we need to hear about the killing of 14-year-old girls by Armenian forces. It is important that we all feel sorry for those murdered by Armenia in Khojaly and in Nagorno-Karabakh as a whole. I say to Ms Zohrabyan that Azerbaijan has a carrier, Olympic medals and gas and oil – importantly we also have democratic values.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Abbasov. The next speaker is Mr Rzayev.

      Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that it had been an interesting discussion. Something terrible had happened but one had to ask why and who was responsible. What was the cause of the murder? The answer was Nagorno-Karabakh. The occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh had resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees and in many people dying. Mr Safarov’s homeland had also been occupied and members of his family killed. He did not want to justify murder, but it should be seen in its context.

Armenians talked about the Safarov case to distract the world’s attention from the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Others had spoken of human rights but did Azerbaijanis not have the right to live and visit their own country? He himself could not go back to his roots in Nagorno-Karabakh. It was important not to find guilt only on the Azerbaijani side.

Dialogue was necessary on Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan had tried in all international fora, but the Armenians had never agreed. He called on the President to help make progress with the discussions. Countries could not change their geography but they needed to talk or the problem would fester.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Rzayev. I next call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that any failure to comply with international resolutions was thoroughly unacceptable. Mr Chope’s description of the barbaric crime committed by Ramil Safarov showed that it was utterly indefensible, and it had sent shivers down his spine. There had been no explanation given for Safarov’s actions, but in any case no explanation could possibly mitigate the gravity of his crime. Mr Chope had been very fair in his opening remarks and had set out the facts quite clearly. Mr Chope’s proposal that the Assembly should work to prevent any possible repetition of such a heinous act was welcome. Similarly, the President’s initiative in calling both sides in for talks had been a positive step, and it was far better to take action rather than simply hanging one’s head in shame.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. The next speaker is Mr Seyidov.

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – A tragedy has happened, and I think that some circles or forces have tried to use it for political reasons. Just a few minutes ago, the very respectable and honourable Lord Anderson asked how Azerbaijanis would feel if Armenians did the same thing. In answer, I have the following examples.

In 1992, three Armenians killed an Azerbaijani woman, a journalist called Salatyn Asgarova, and after two years the Azerbaijani Government transferred those Armenians to Armenia. What did Armenia do? It immediately released them. In 1996, Kamo Saakov was sentenced to death for attempting to blow up the Baku underground. We transferred this person to Armenia, and it immediately released him. In 2001, when Armenia became a fully fledged member of the Council of Europe, France transferred the terrorist, Varoujan Garabedian, who killed eight people at Orly airport in Paris. That person was immediately released, glorified and given a special apartment, and he met officials in Yerevan. Do you know these facts, dear friends?

That is why, when we are talking about Azerbaijan and this tragedy, we should take into account the war that went on between two nations. It is very strange that the Safarov case should be under discussion. What about the Khojaly case, which has never been discussed here, in which more than 716 women, girls and elderly people were killed by Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh? I do not understand why the President of Armenia said he was proud that he had taken part in the war in Karabakh. I do not understand why the former President of Armenia, Mr Kochinyan, said that there is an incompatibility between the two nations. In this case, my dear friends, we should discuss in this Chamber not only the Safarov case, but the Karabakh case, the Khojaly case and my brother’s case, because he was killed by Armenians. But we are looking for peace, and that is the main reason why we are here.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Seyidov. I next call Mr Renato Farina.

Mr Renato FARINA (Italy) urged the Assembly not to turn its back on peace. A stronger side in any dispute could not trample over the vanquished side. It was important to consider the facts: one soldier had killed another while working together. In medieval times, this would have been known as murder motivated by cruelty, since it was only by chance and good fortune that no-one else had been harmed. He had been particularly concerned when, at a recent meeting in Paris, someone had attempted to justify the murder by explaining its motivation. If such a crime could be committed at an event held under the auspices of NATO, what would stop such a crime happening under the blue flag of the Council of Europe? The second issue was the celebration of Mr Safarov in his home country. This amounted to nothing less than the glorification of a murderer, and was as grievous a crime as if one man had bludgeoned another using the stone tablet on which Moses wrote the words “Thou shalt not kill”. As Mr Díaz Tejera had said, the time had come to move forward.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Farina. I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – First of all, the Safarov incident relates directly to Armenia’s military aggression against Azerbaijan and occupation of Azerbaijani territory; in no way can these factors be debated separately. A sense of concern is a significant quality that must be constantly observed by international organisations and those in leading positions in those essential bodies. The absence of a sense of concern generates indifference, which means that many problems still awaiting solutions remain unresolved, sometimes for years, subjecting hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of people to hardship and suffering. Frankly, recent developments have led me to conclude that most people, including some in the Council of Europe, are increasingly losing that sense of concern. Armenia has occupied 20% of the Azerbaijani territories, and the lack of a solution to the conflict indicates the indifference of bigger international organisations.

Nevertheless, recent statements have been made by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and certain other international organisations reflecting concern about the Safarov case. I feel joyful, amazed and also deeply thoughtful; I rejoice because such statements indicate that those people have not lost the necessary sense of concern.

However, hasty statements about the case are surprising, because Safarov’s release was in full compliance with international legal norms and the law itself. Deep thoughts arise about why the Council of Europe and other international organisations have not reacted similarly to so serious a humanitarian tragedy as the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and the problem of 1 million people living the life of refugees and internally displaced persons.

Considering what I have just mentioned, I would like to ask several questions. How can one justify the decision by a German court to release the Armenian murderer Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated the former Turkish statesman Talaat Pasha in Berlin? How can one explain the decision by the French authorities to pardon two Armenian terrorists from the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia – Varoujan Garabedian, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for organising the bombing of Orly airport in Paris, and Monte Melkonian, who was sentenced for the assassination of Turkish diplomats – both of whom were then deported to Armenia? These criminals were then declared official national heroes in Armenia.

The Azerbaijani President was absolutely right to pardon Ramil Safarov, who was in prison for years, and in so doing expressed the will of 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs, thus considerably easing tension in society. The Council of Europe, both today and tomorrow, should be concerned above all else with the non-implementation of Resolution 1416, which relates to the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territories.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Huseynov. I call Mr Rustamyan.

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) said that it was unfortunate that speakers from Azerbaijan had misled the Assembly about what had really occurred. The Safarov case was not merely an issue of concern to Azerbaijan and Armenia, but represented a challenge to all of Europe. What was of particular concern was the fraudulent use of a legal instrument for improper political reasons. The Assembly should act to prevent the violation of its principles, in spite of Azerbaijan doing whatever it could to defend itself and justify murder. Was there any doubt over the propriety of the Hungarian court or the appropriateness of the sentence?

There had been a lack of progress in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and it would be important to respond swiftly to any future problem.

      THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Rustamyan and called Mr. Szabó.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) said that the crime had been committed in Budapest in 2004. It was not only a serious criminal matter but had been aggravated by ethnic conflict. The previous government had taken the wise decision to deal with the matter through contact with all three national parties: Hungary, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Mr Safarov had been tried in Hungary and began his sentence there as well. However, his transfer to Azerbaijan had taken place after discussions only between Hungary and Azerbaijan and it was after this that he had been feted as a national hero. The Hungarian government had not dealt with the matter as fully as it should have done, and it had not obtained a strong enough guarantee from Azerbaijan that Mr Safarov would be dealt with in accordance with his sentence. It was possible that the presidential pardon was in line with the letter of international law, but it was certainly not within the spirit of that law. The Hungarian Democrats had not agreed with the pardon, and thought it irresponsible. They would continue to promote good relations, and had asked for the pardon of the Armenian people. Consideration should be given to the application of the law on extradition agreements, and whether such agreements should be applied to cases with nationalist or racist motives.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Szabó. The next speaker is Mr Ahmet Türkeş.

Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – The relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia has been troubled for decades because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The escalation of that conflict to a full-scale war has always remained a real possibility. Despite the gravity of the situation between the two countries, peaceful resolution of the conflict has not been achieved.

The Safarov case has again put the region on a knife edge. The threat of aggression from Armenian officials and the recognition of the disputed region are reigniting the conflict. Despite the legality of the extradition of Safarov by Hungarian and Azerbaijani officials pursuant to Article 12 of the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, the political repercussions of the extradition should be neither neglected nor exaggerated.

The peaceful resolution of the conflict needs restraint, particularly on the Armenian side. Seeing itself as the victor in the conflict, Armenia does not refrain from making threats of aggression. It should not be forgotten that resorting to aggression based on long years of hatred and grievances is very easy, whereas such hasty behaviour will only turn more Azerbaijanis and Armenians into statistics in the death tolls and reports on internally displaced peoples.

The murder committed by Ramil Safarov should not be used to draw attention away from the human tragedy that continues unabated in the region. It is evident that the conflict does not benefit anyone, particularly Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The international community should help those on both sides to solve this conflict, rather than freezing it again.

Let me remind members that from 1973 to 1987, Armenian terrorist organisations organised 170 attacks and as a result killed 31 Turkish diplomats. They also caused the death of 39 civilians and wounded more than 500. Even in France, Turkish diplomats and numerous French citizens were killed by Armenian terrorists.

My point is that we have never heard any Armenian official, parliamentarian or person condemn in any way the killings of Turkish diplomats at the hands of Armenian terrorists. On the contrary, they were glorified, awarded and respected like heroes. Now, I see that our Armenian colleagues are hurt. I see that they understand how painful it is. I therefore ask them to stop using this case as a political tool and to sit together with their Azerbaijani colleagues to overcome their differences.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – We were all very happy indeed when on 28 June 2000 our Assembly decided to affiliate both Armenia and Azerbaijan into the Council of Europe. I remember well how the representatives of both states embraced each other in this Chamber after the proclamation of our decision. At that time, we all believed that the conflicts between them would soon come to an end and be replaced by the spirit of co-operation.

I remind members that in its Opinion 221 (2000) on Armenian adhesion, the Assembly stated that it believed the accession of both Armenia and Azerbaijan could help to establish the climate of trust necessary for a solution to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Exactly the same text was included in the Opinion 222 (2000) on Azerbaijan. We truly believed that the membership of both Armenia and Azerbaijan would give a new impetus to regional co-operation in the South Caucasus. That was also a condition for membership as stated in article 3 in the Council of Europe’s statute.

In the meantime, a proposal was initiated to establish a stability pact for the South Caucasus as an instrument to support the goal. The Assembly adopted Resolution 1525 (2006) and Recommendation 1771 (2006). Unfortunately, the Committee of Ministers did not support that idea in its reply of 16 July. We started to promote the idea again with a motion entitled, “New parliamentary effort to create a stability pact in the South Caucasus “. The work had already started when the new wave of tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan was caused by the pardoning of the prisoner Ramil Safarov by the President of Azerbaijan. That gave rise to a new wave of hate between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

As has been said, in 2006, Safarov was sentenced by a Budapest court to life imprisonment for the assassination of the Armenian officer, Gurgen Margaryan, whom he killed in a military academy in Budapest in 2004. I remind members that the Assembly recently dealt with the issue of honour crimes in Recommendation 1881 (2009) and Resolution 1681 (2009), which urged member states to take measures to eliminate such behaviour. What, for Azerbaijan, is the justification for such a crime? It is unacceptable. The act affected the whole region of the South Caucasus.

The Armenian reaction was also very strong, as President Serzh Sargsyan said in an official statement that Armenia did not want war, but that if it had to, it was ready to fight and win. The case has destroyed our hope that reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan is possible. I admire the President of the Assembly’s decision to invite the leaders of both delegations to discuss the situation, but that is highly insufficient. I call for urgent high-level meetings on the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the resolution of their conflict. Alone, they are unable to solve the conflict, so the Council of Europe should take responsibility and act.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Zourabian.

Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – Although I am a member of the Armenian delegation, I want to take our debate out of the context of heated debates between Armenians and Azerbaijanis on the moral and historical grounds of our respective causes in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

I will not contemplate today whether the glorification of a convicted murderer by any nation can be considered to be acceptable behaviour or whether stalled negotiations can serve as a justification for brutal acts of violence and murder. Answers to such questions seem to be self-evident for the majority in this audience.

      What matters most in this situation and what is really at stake is the fate of the peoples of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, the fate of peace in the South Caucasus and the overall stability of the broader region. In May 1994 a cease-fire was established between the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and since then negotiations within the framework of the so-called Minsk Group of the OSCE have been held to find a lasting solution to the conflict and bring peace to Armenians and Azerbaijanis. While difficult and sometimes frustrating, these negotiations are the only alternative to a large-scale, destructive regional war.

      We must face reality: the actions of Azerbaijan and, to a much lesser extent, of Hungary, which led to the extradition and subsequent release and glorification of the murderer, dealt a serious blow to the negotiation process and undermined any prospects of confidence-building between the parties in the foreseeable future. We have too many crises and tensions within the region – Syria, Iraq, the situation regarding Iran and so on. In this context, the preservation of the fragile negotiation process over the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem should be one of the international community’s priorities.

      As the country’s main opposition, we have warned in the National Assembly of Armenia against any destructive responses by the Armenian Government to the aggressive moves by Azerbaijan. We believe that, instead, the international community should react vigorously. The message sent to the leaders of the region should be crystal clear: responsible leaders cannot seek credit with the cheap and dubious inflammation of nationalist sentiments; rather, they should weigh their actions to ensure that they contribute to the peaceful settlement of conflicts. Acting otherwise would be tantamount to fuelling tensions in the South Caucasus, undermining the fragile cease-fire and the difficult peace negotiations.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Zourabian. I do not see Mr Beneyto, so I call Ms Gafarova.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I am one of the last speakers in the debate, so I shall mention a few points, taking previous speeches into consideration. We are discussing the Safarov case today, but I strongly believe that we should remember that the transfer of the Azerbaijani officer Ramil Safarov was just a juridical process, and at every stage of the process all the legal requirements were observed. It is obvious that the process was based on juridical mechanisms and there was no deviation from the law.

      My colleagues have spoken here about certain events, and I emphasise in particular what happened at Orly airport. In January 2001 Armenia became a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In April 2001 the Armenian terrorist Varoujan Garabedian, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for organising the bombing in Orly airport, was deported to Armenia although he was not an Armenian citizen. High-ranking officials in Yerevan met with him and named him a hero. Please note that at that time Armenia was already a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but not one organisation or the Assembly itself has ever discussed that case. I ask the authors of the criticism of Azerbaijan why were they speechless at that time?

      We now see the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe discussing the issue of an Azerbaijani citizen who has already served eight years of his sentence and who was pardoned but not exonerated. Although Azerbaijan and Armenia are both members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, they are approached quite differently.

      If we are going to speak about the Safarov case, we should also speak about the reasons behind it – not the ostensible reasons, but the real ones. The reality is that this event occurred due to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands and the presence of 1 million refugees and IDPs in Azerbaijan. The case of Ramil Safarov has to be considered not separately but in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The motivation for his actions was that very problem. He is a refugee and his relatives were killed before his eyes. He committed the crime – we know that, and in 2006 he was sentenced to a life term.

      If we are discussing the Safarov case, why have we not discussed the Khojaly massacre or the “ethnic cleansing” of Azerbaijani people in Armenia? I can continue this line of questioning, because there are many examples of crimes during the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia. Why have we not discussed the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan? He said that he was one of the people in Khojaly at that time.

      In conclusion, the occupation of Azerbaijan by Armenia is illegal. The United Nations Security Council confirmed this back in 1993.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. I now call Mr Salles.

Mr SALLES (France) said that the release and glorification of Mr Safarov had rightly given rise to protest. To pardon him and to welcome him as a hero were odious acts. There had been several aggravating circumstances in the crime, including pre-meditation and the absence of remorse. The pardon therefore seriously affected the values of this institution, including respect for life which was an elementary value.

A third country had also been involved in this case, namely Hungary. Technically, the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons had been followed to the letter. Article 12 clearly set out the right to pardon. Hungary’s decision, however, had been taken quickly and without warning Armenia. The spirit of the convention was intended to allow criminals to serve their sentence in their country of origin: it was important to emphasise the words “serving their sentence”. The severity of the sentence that had been given to Mr Safarov was a reflection of nature of his crime, which had entailed 16 blows of an axe. The nature of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan should have led Hungary to be more cautious.

Azerbaijan had displayed an intolerable attitude and should be condemned. As a member of the Council of Europe it had cast shame on that body. He wanted to say to his Azerbaijani colleagues that what had been heard that afternoon was not argument but propaganda. It was unbearable to associate this case with the situation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and they had tarnished their delegation in the eyes of this forum. The pardon granted to Mr Safarov constituted an indelible stain on Azerbaijan, and he questioned whether that country could continue to sit legitimately within the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Salles. The last speaker is Mr Gaudi Nagy.

       Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – As the last speaker, I would like to express my deep sorrow about all the victims of this conflict between two nations with special links to Hungary. One curious point about this conflict is that there is an Armenian community in Hungary, and we have good relations and historical traditions in common. We also have common roots with the Azeri people.

      I feel that in this debate we have examined just the tip of the iceberg. We should not fall into the trap of double standards. I absolutely agree that international organisations must try to resolve this conflict, and must look at it within the framework of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. Whether or not the pardon was right, this is an opportunity for the parties involved.

      From one point of view, we should observe the whole conflict and try to face the challenge. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict means that we cannot solve this problem; all these problems will take a new form tomorrow, or in a week or two. There is also the issue of Transnistria, and there are many frozen conflicts in Europe. It would be absolutely intolerable if this Assembly neglected and forgot the fact that we must use all means possible to solve these frozen conflicts, with reference to the principles of self-determination, in order to find a fair and just solution, so that we can find a way for Armenian and Azerbaijani people to live together peacefully, and so that European standards are met. Do not blame Hungary and Azerbaijan exclusively.

      On the issue of double standards, we have in Hungary another case – that of Mr Tobin, an Irish citizen who killed two children in Hungary. He was sentenced to three years, but 12 years have passed and Hungary has not been able to get him extradited so that he can go to prison. We have to face up to our real problems, and should not misuse the cruel and sad case of Mr Safarov.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) –That concludes the list of speakers. Mr Chope, do you wish to speak?

       Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I had not expected to have the privilege of responding to this debate, because I took up 10 minutes at the beginning. I thank everybody for participating in this debate. If we in this Chamber are able to have a civilised debate on such a potentially emotional issue, that is a good way forward. I hope that we can build on this, and will not see a repeat of this type of incident in the future.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I remind you that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide on a text, but as you say, Mr Chope, the debate allowed us to hear an interesting exchange of views between members of the Assembly. As Mrs Brasseur said, the matter may be referred by the Bureau to the responsible committee for a report. The Bureau will probably discuss the matter tomorrow morning.

5. Written declaration

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration, No. 533, has been tabled on the Ukrainian Parliament vote to ban freedom of expression in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. That declaration has been signed by 36 members. It is in Document 13051. Any member, substitute, observer or Partner for Democracy may add his or her signature to that written declaration in the Table Office, room 1083.

6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.35 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Code of conduct of members of the Parliamentary Assembly: good practice or a core duty?

Presentation by Mr Walter of report, Document 13000, on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs

Speakers:

Mr Harutyunyan (Armenia)

Mr Villumsen (Demnark)

Mr Wach (Poland)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Ms Čigāne (Latvia)

Mr Bugnon (Switzerland)

Ms Fraser (Observer from Canada)

Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Draft resolution contained in Document 13000 adopted.

3. The right to freedom of choice in education in Europe

Presentation by Ms Quintanilla of report, Document 13010, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

Speakers:

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Connarty (United Kingdom)

Mr Comte (Switzerland)

Mr Phelan (Ireland)

Mr Voruz (Switzerland)

Ms Schou (Norway)

Mr Pintado (Spain)

Ms Acketoft (Sweden)

Ms Bilgehan (Turkey)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Renato Farina (Italy)

Mr Nicolaides (Cyprus)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Mrs Erkel Kara (Turkey)

Ms Guţu (Republic of Moldova)

Mr McNamara (Ireland)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Kaźmierczak (Poland)

Amendments 1 to 4 adopted.

Draft resolution contained in document 13010, as amended, adopted.

4. Current affairs debate: the Safarov case

Speakers:

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mrs Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Vejkey (Hungary)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mr Harutyunyan (Armenia)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Ms Zoharbyan (Armenia)

Mr Abbasov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Ryazev (Azerbaijan)

Mr Diaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Renato Farina (Italy)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Rustamyan (Armenia)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Mr Ahmet Turkeş (Turkey)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr Zourabian (Armenia)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Mr Salles (France)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

5. Written declaration

6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting